Actually, you didn't stop yourself. And no, I'm from Texas. Never been to Europe and frankly, it's not on my list of places to see before I die.

Other than that you've avoided presenting any evidence for your original claims, choosing instead to level unfounded accusations and insults against me, demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what I've said and have layered even more conjecture on top of your original baseless assertions. Given that, I see now that you either have no evidence for your claims or you have no compelling evidence.

To clarify a few things... the death penalty is not self defense. It isn't even third party self defense because self defense takes place during the offense. The death penalty is retaliation and thus, by definition, murder. While it does prevent the recurrence of crime by a single individual, it only does so when the correct individual is killed. Another thing it fails to accomplish is restitution. True justice must include restitution. If not, it is merely retaliation.

You claim that we must kill one another in order to prevent harm. Do you understand the logical contradiction there? Should we also remove everyone's lungs in order to prevent lung cancer?

What you advocate is a chaotic, morally nihilistic form of barbarism the likes of which I would expect to only hear from fundamentalist, Old Testament christians like Fred Phelps.

(30-01-2013 09:13 AM)bbeljefe Wrote: Actually, you didn't stop yourself. And no, I'm from Texas. Never been to Europe and frankly, it's not on my list of places to see before I die.

Other than that you've avoided presenting any evidence for your original claims, choosing instead to level unfounded accusations and insults against me, demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what I've said and have layered even more conjecture on top of your original baseless assertions. Given that, I see now that you either have no evidence for your claims or you have no compelling evidence.

To clarify a few things... the death penalty is not self defense. It isn't even third party self defense because self defense takes place during the offense. The death penalty is retaliation and thus, by definition, murder. While it does prevent the recurrence of crime by a single individual, it only does so when the correct individual is killed. Another thing it fails to accomplish is restitution. True justice must include restitution. If not, it is merely retaliation.

You claim that we must kill one another in order to prevent harm. Do you understand the logical contradiction there? Should we also remove everyone's lungs in order to prevent lung cancer?

What you advocate is a chaotic, morally nihilistic form of barbarism the likes of which I would expect to only hear from fundamentalist, Old Testament christians like Fred Phelps.

Oh sure we can have restitution, we can restitute them all where you live. When your family members are murdered and your little tush gets raped you can call me back and tell me how that works out for you.

If you want to allow suffering to exist in this world, then you should be the one to suffer. Your lack of back bone should NOT cause others to suffer. And suffer people will should you allow murderers and rapists to exist.

Murderers and Rapists were not always such bad people, I'll give you that, but you can not go back once you cross a certain. There is no way to redeem themselves, no way that society can EVER trust them again. Murderer and Rapist, those are lifelong titles for good reason. Because it's a lifelong profession, which they will continue to do until they're stopped.

Are you thinking of murdering or raping anyone? Is that why your such a pussy bitch when it comes to pass judgment upon others for their actions? As I am now, if I committed murder or rape I would want someone to extinguish my life, if I became a murderer or a rapist I wouldn't want them to kill me because I suspect I'd be very selfish then. Rape is the ultimate form of torture, slavery, and selfish desire. Murder is the ultimate form of hatred, and more than enough also of selfish desire.

I do not support executions to be used as a form of deterrent, I support executions because they are the most merciful judgment one can reach. Your lack of backbone would cause many to suffer, including the person who committed the crimes. You are a cruel man, who only thinks of ways to prevent himself from feeling guilt. You are guilty. Far more guilty than all I am in my being, for you would allow others to suffer on behalf of your own selfish reasons.

One more thing, you asked for evidence on how this would stop murder or rape? I thought it was pretty damn obvious how it would help prevent that. The 'recidivism' rate in the U.S. is around 50% for both rape or murder if I recall correctly. Common knowledge and a little bit of math would mean that if you executed the murderers or rapists then you'd stop that 50% from happening. Yes it also does deter crime rates, which is a bonus but not the reason why I support execution. I support execution because it saves the criminals from themselves.

One more thing! Execution is NOT murder. Only little pussy bitches with a tampon up their ass, think it is. Which means you're either a pussy bitch or extremely young and naive. There's a reason why I don't refer to Execution as 'Capital Punishment' or 'Death Penalty' and that's because I view it as neither a punishment or a penalty.

Were you watching Christopher Hitchens? Is that why you've lost your bearing on this subject? Christopher Hitchens I know was an advocate for suffering and murder. I did not like him because of that. I do not support murder and I do not enjoy watching anyone suffer.

(30-01-2013 10:51 AM)bbeljefe Wrote: Do you find lobbing insults and baseless assertions to be a productive debate strategy? If not, perhaps it would help if you tried it in all caps.

It would be at least be a valuable sign to those who are thinking of engaging you.

And what pray tell would you engage me with? That all life is sacred? That who are we to decide who should and who should live? All are petty arguments designed to make you feel better about yourself for your lack of responsibility. Obviously I hit a cord somewhere along the line if that's all you can come back with.

(30-01-2013 10:51 AM)bbeljefe Wrote: Do you find lobbing insults and baseless assertions to be a productive debate strategy? If not, perhaps it would help if you tried it in all caps.

It would be at least be a valuable sign to those who are thinking of engaging you.

And what pray tell would you engage me with? That all life is sacred? That who are we to decide who should and who should live? All are petty arguments designed to make you feel better about yourself for your lack of responsibility. Obviously I hit a cord somewhere along the line if that's all you can come back with.

You appear hooked on the notion that a specific ideology,based on moral values of some sort, will make for a better society, yet you fail to get into the nitty gritty.
Would, or does, a police state of any sort, pushing their eclectic "truths" serve for a happy society?

Do you have a view re euthanasia, mercy killings, abortions, infanticide, sexual deviations (so called) God,
value judgements, the aged, Alzheimers, insanity, singularity, obscenity, dogma and other controversial issues, or simply see the answer in shooting all the pre determined "bad people" .....

(30-01-2013 05:36 PM)Mr Woof Wrote: You appear hooked on the notion that a specific ideology,based on moral values of some sort, will make for a better society, yet you fail to get into the nitty gritty.
Would, or does, a police state of any sort, pushing their eclectic "truths" serve for a happy society?

Do you have a view re euthanasia, mercy killings, abortions, infanticide, sexual deviations (so called) God,
value judgements, the aged, Alzheimers, insanity, singularity, obscenity, dogma and other controversial issues, or simply see the answer in shooting all the pre determined "bad people" .....

I wouldn't want to kill rapists or murderers if I didn't consider it a mercy killing. I do not know what you mean with the rest of that though.

You don't need a police state to end the life of someone who has committed a heinous crime. All you need is the reality check that if you don't, more people will suffer because of your inaction, which is reason enough to end their existence. That's without the merciful part intertwined in.

If you were asking for my opinion earlier about the other list of things then I can see that I do not see anything wrong with euthanasia, abortion. Infanticide is murder though, once it's been popped out it is no longer a part of the woman's body and is therefore it's own being. Sexual Deviations as long as the partner is of age and consenting I don't really see a problem with it. As for bestiality part of sexual deviation I honestly don't see anything wrong with it, I also find the current views society has on it to be extremely sexist, generally it is fine for a woman to have sex with a dog but it is frowned upon when a man does it? Hmph, double standards up the ass.

I really don't have any idea what exactly you're trying to get at with the last few though.

I already engaged you. You responded with vitriol, personal attacks and presumptions about a person whom you have never met and whom you know nothing.

And it isn't that you've hit a cord with me, it's that you refuse to carry on a rational, civil debate. I enjoy rational and civil debate and there's not a subject about which I won't talk. However, I won't pretend to carry on a debate with someone who lacks curiosity and who bloviates incessantly.

(30-01-2013 08:18 PM)bbeljefe Wrote: I already engaged you. You responded with vitriol, personal attacks and presumptions about a person whom you have never met and whom you know nothing.

And it isn't that you've hit a cord with me, it's that you refuse to carry on a rational, civil debate. I enjoy rational and civil debate and there's not a subject about which I won't talk. However, I won't pretend to carry on a debate with someone who lacks curiosity and who bloviates incessantly.

What you did was just say that you think murderers and rapists should be allowed to live, you didn't even give any good reasons for that (or any reasons). Me I went and said that I think they should be killed, to protect society, to grant them mercy, and enact the necessary consequences for their actions which we call justice.

(30-01-2013 05:36 PM)Mr Woof Wrote: You appear hooked on the notion that a specific ideology,based on moral values of some sort, will make for a better society, yet you fail to get into the nitty gritty.
Would, or does, a police state of any sort, pushing their eclectic "truths" serve for a happy society?

Do you have a view re euthanasia, mercy killings, abortions, infanticide, sexual deviations (so called) God,
value judgements, the aged, Alzheimers, insanity, singularity, obscenity, dogma and other controversial issues, or simply see the answer in shooting all the pre determined "bad people" .....

I wouldn't want to kill rapists or murderers if I didn't consider it a mercy killing. I do not know what you mean with the rest of that though.

You don't need a police state to end the life of someone who has committed a heinous crime. All you need is the reality check that if you don't, more people will suffer because of your inaction, which is reason enough to end their existence. That's without the merciful part intertwined in.

If you were asking for my opinion earlier about the other list of things then I can see that I do not see anything wrong with euthanasia, abortion. Infanticide is murder though, once it's been popped out it is no longer a part of the woman's body and is therefore it's own being. Sexual Deviations as long as the partner is of age and consenting I don't really see a problem with it. As for bestiality part of sexual deviation I honestly don't see anything wrong with it, I also find the current views society has on it to be extremely sexist, generally it is fine for a woman to have sex with a dog but it is frowned upon when a man does it? Hmph, double standards up the ass.

I really don't have any idea what exactly you're trying to get at with the last few though.

I think that the human rights activists, as they relate to murder/rape, sometimes tend to ignore the victims too much when it comes to sentencing.

I would not protest over the executions of those bus rapists and murderers,given the nature of the crime, which was particularly horrendous.

However, not all rapes and murders are identical. For example, to use an extreme case, if a child was raped and tortured for years by the father, while locked underground, escapes, and murders the violator, would you execute that person.
I know this is an extreme example but the justice systems have to do a lot of nuancing.

There is a very fine line between perceived justice and opting for a quick solution. There have been some cases of those executed being found innocent many years later, also.